June
2012
Volume 50
Number 3
Article # 3RIB6
Research In Brief

June
2012
// Volume 50
// Number 3 // Research In Brief // 3RIB6

Assessment of Pork Producer Educational Needs for Adoption of Group Sow Housing

Abstract
Pork producers in Michigan
and several other states are mandated through regulation or
legislation to house gestating sows in groups. Focus groups with
Michigan pork producers were completed to determine their educational
needs to transition from individual housing to group sow housing.
Pork producers indicated that their strategic education needs were:
retrofitting existing facilities, feeding systems, employee training,
new construction, genetics, and production scheduling. Regarding
implementation, producers indicated that education would be needed on
defining a sow group, stockperson training, medical care, and feeding
and watering. Depending on the topic, producers indicated different
educational media preferences for program delivery.

Gerald May
Extension Educator
Michigan State University Extension
Ithaca, Michiganmayg@msu.edu

Dale Rozeboom
Professor
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michiganrozeboom@msu.edu

Janice Siegford
Assistant Professor
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigansiegford@msu.edu

Introduction

Housing sows in individual stalls on
commercial farms has become a topic of general concern worldwide. The
American Veterinary Medical Association released their comprehensive
review of research that compared the performance and welfare of sows
housed individually in stalls or in groups and found neither method
had documentable differences for animal welfare (Sow Housing Task
Force, 2005). Yet the use of individual stalls to house sows has
continued to come under increasing scrutiny from consumers (Tonsor,
Wolf, & Olynk, 2009). The European Union (EU) has disallowed the
use of individual stalls for sows after 4 weeks of pregnancy (Council
Directive 2001/88/EC), and all member states must be in compliance by
January 1, 2013. In the United States, several states (Florida,
Arizona, California) have passed ballot initiatives to ban housing
sows in individual stalls for defined portions of gestation, while
other states (Oregon, Colorado, Maine) have passed negotiated
legislation that accomplished a similar outcome.

In the fall of 2009, Michigan also passed
legislation (Public Act 117) that amended the Animal Industries Act
(Michigan Public Act 488 of 1988) to disallow housing gestating sows
in individual stalls. Within the legislation, sows that have been
confirmed pregnant must be able to turn around freely, lie down,
stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Sows can be housed in stalls
for up to 7 days before their expected farrowing date, through
farrowing and lactation, and after weaning until they are confirmed
pregnant. Housing gestating sows in stalls is allowable for
veterinary examination, testing, or treatment as directed by a
veterinarian. This legislation became effective March 31, 2010, and
producers must comply with the legislation by April 1, 2020.

Though it may seem that Michigan pork
producers have an extended period of time to decide how best to
comply with this legislative mandate, the 10-year compliance horizon
will pass quickly. For example, among the 13 EU nations that must
comply with the EU regulation on sow housing, the percentage of sows
in group housing within a country ranged from 20 to 70% when there
were 30 months remaining to meet the compliance mandate by the 2013
target (Martin, 2010). The purpose of the study reported here was to
develop an understanding of the educational needs among Michigan pork
producers and begin to create the educational resources pork
producers will need to transition into group housing of sows.

Methods

Focus groups were completed in February and
March 2010 at three locations in Michigan. Guidelines used to form
each focus group were developed as suggested by Gamon (1992). Each
location was chosen to be close to sow farms, but the geographical
area would not overlap with one of the other locations chosen. Pork
producers near the location of each focus group were invited to
attend through a written invitation followed by telephone call from a
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) Pork Team member. The
Michigan Pork Producers Association pork producer database was used
to generate mailing lists for the written invitations. Producers were
asked to register in advance, but no registration fees were
collected. In addition, producers were asked that, if possible, one
management person and one animal technician represent their farm at
the focus group. Across the three focus groups, 27 males and three
females attended.

At each focus group, a general introduction
of the topic was given, which was then followed by three interactive
sessions. One MSUE Pork Team member took notes, while another acted
as the moderator for each session and was familiar with participants
in attendance. This was done to increase familiarity and to improve
communication among participants.

In Session I, participants were asked to
finish the following statement, "When my farm changes to
group housing for gestating sows I will need more
information/education about…" with topics that would
finish this statement from a Strategic or Whole-Farm point of view.
This tactic was used to approach the issue of what information would
be needed for a farm to change their infrastructure to adopt group
sow housing. Participants were provided an initial listing of topics
(Figure 1) to consider. Participants could keep, modify, delete, or
add to the list of items that would complete the statement.

Figure 1.
Initial Ideas for Consideration by Michigan Pork Producers for the Question, "When my farm
changes to group housing for gestating sows I will need more
information/education about…" When Considering a Strategic
or Whole-Farm Point of View

Characterization
of Different Group Housing Options

Retrofit
Options – Characterization and Concerns

Retrofit Cost
Comparisons

New
Construction Options/Costs

Employee
Training – Managing Gestating Sows in Groups

For Session II, participants were asked to
consider the same statement as discussed in Session I. However,
participants were asked to consider this statement from a tactical or
day-to-day implementation point of view. As in Session I,
participants could keep, modify, delete or add to the initial list of
items (Figure 2) that would complete the statement.

Figure 2.
Initial Ideas for Consideration
by Michigan Pork Producers for the Question, "When my farm
changes to group housing for gestating sows I will need more
information/education about…" When Considering a Tactical
or Implementation Point of View

Sow Behavior in
Groups

Consequences of
Mixing Sows

Sow Handling

Feeding
Practices for Sows in Groups

Medical Care
and Observation of Sows in Groups

Pen and
Facility Requirements for Group Housed Sows

For Sessions I and II, moderators did not
influence the responses provided by the participants and encouraged
them to create new or alternative topics not initially provided. Once
the lists of items were completed within each session, participants
were asked to designate which items were of most importance to them.
This was done by placing an adhesive dot by the item of their choice.
Participants were given five dots that they could use as they chose
to. After the completion of each session, MSUE Pork Team members
tallied the number of responses to each of the topics listed and
reported back to the participants the listing of topics and the
number of responses for each, including only those topics that
received at least one vote.

Session III focused on potential educational
delivery tools. Participants were asked to consider the type of
educational media that would be preferable for each of the reported
topics in Sessions I and II. Participants were provided a list of
possible educational delivery tools (Figure 3), and they were asked
if they wanted to modify, delete, or add to the list of items. Once
the list was completed, each participant was given three adhesive
dots for each topic and asked to use the adhesive dots to designate
three tools for each of the topics that would be a preferable means
for educational delivery of this topic.

Results and Discussion

Participants in each focus group were not
given any results from any other focus groups. After completion of
all three focus groups, results were aggregated across focus groups.
Topics had to be ranked at more than one of the focus group sessions
to be included. Figure 4 lists those educational topics that
producers indicated were of highest priority for improving their
strategic planning. Subcategories for each priority were those
provided by participants to further describe their needs within each
category. Producers indicated that their highest priority was for
information regarding what options were available to retrofit
existing facilities and what feeding systems to consider. Yet there
were strong opinions regarding need for further information on all of
the ranked topics.

aRankings
were determined through aggregation of results across focus groups.

In Figure 5, the highest ranked topics
pertaining to informational needs for tactical/implementation
planning are listed. Defining sow groups and how to form them ranked
highest, while Employee training ranked second. For both strategic
and tactical planning, Employee/Stockperson training and education
were areas of concern. This suggests that pork producers were
concerned about the effect of this change on their employees.
Successful implementation of group sow housing will require that
employees understand how group housing can be implemented to maintain
historical productivity and appreciate that their daily routine and
skills will change to successfully implement group sow housing.

a Rankings
were determined through aggregation of results across focus groups.

Table 1 provides producer preferences for
different educational delivery methods for each topic related to
strategic decision-making. At each of the focus groups, participants
included using email as a means for information transfer. Producer
preferences for different educational delivery methods were somewhat
dispersed across the different strategic topics, but some interesting
patterns emerged. Producers showed preference for Internet-based
methods and consistently wanted on-demand access to information that
could be accessed from an Internet bulletin board containing
information and tools. This is consistent with recent reports that
farmers use a wide array of technology in both their business and
private life (Guenthner & Swan, 2011).

Yet producers continued to want some
educational offerings through more traditional methods (Face to face
– common location, Face to face – on-farm, One on one –
on-farm). This was particularly true for Employee Training, with 37%
indicating a preference for these traditional methods of educational
program delivery. In addition, participants indicated that the use of
distance educational methods (Internet-Based Workshops,
Teleconference with PowerPointTM slides, Pre-recorded
CDs/DVDs) was an acceptable method for informational delivery and
technology transfer. This suggests that pork producers are adapting
to advanced methods of communication and will utilize a variety of
communication media to acquire the information they need for
decision-making.

Table 2 contains participant preferences for
different educational delivery methods for ranked topics pertaining
to tactical/implementation planning. For the topics of, Defining a
Sow Group and Stockperson Training, producers indicated they would
prefer traditional educational methods (Face to face common location,
Face to face, on-farm, One on one on-farm) over that of an Internet
bulletin board of resources and tools. This is similar to the finding
that farmers preferred more traditional methods of learning methods
(Franz, Piercy, Donaldson, Westbrook, & Robert, 2010). However,
for the topics of Medical Care and Feeding and Watering, distance
education methods (Internet based workshops, Teleconference with
PowerPoint slides, Pre-recorded CDs/DVDs) and an Internet bulletin
board with on-demand information and tools along with traditional
educational methods were all ranked similarly. This indicates that
pork producers do value different educational options differently
depending on the topic and how the information may be used.

These focus groups
provided critical insight into the educational needs of pork
producers as they consider their options for changing a key phase of
their production system. In addition, other livestock industries may
consider how the results obtained in the study reported here may be
applicable to their circumstances. The results from these focus
groups will be used to develop an educational curriculum to address
the needs pork producers will have as they transition from individual
to group sow housing. Furthermore, pork producers indicated their
preferred methods of delivery of educational programs regarding both
strategic and tactical implementation planning. These preferences
will be used to develop educational delivery methods that meet the
need of Michigan pork producers as they implement management
practices to meet future legislated requirements for group sow
housing in gestation.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by a Michigan
State University Extension Program Reinvestment Fund grant. The
authors wish to thank the Michigan Pork Producers Association for
their help and assistance with this project.

The Journal of Extension

The Journal of Extension (JOE) is the official refereed journal of the U.S. Cooperative Extension System. JOE expands and updates the research and knowledge base for Extension professionals and other adult educators to improve their effectiveness. In addition, JOE serves as a forum for emerging and contemporary issues affecting Extension education.